The defendant is charged [in count __]
with criminal trespass in the first degree. The statute defining this offense
reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of criminal
trespass in the first degree when such person (enters / remains in)1 a building or any other
premises in violation of a (restraining order / protective order / foreign order
of protection).2

For you to find the defendant guilty
of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:

Element 1 - Entered or remainedThe first element is that the
defendant (entered / remained in) a building or other premises.

<Include only as much of the
statutory definition that is supported by the allegations in the information and
the evidence in the case:> "Building"
in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes any watercraft, aircraft, trailer,
sleeping car, railroad car, other structure or vehicle or any building with a
valid certificate of occupancy. Where a building consists of separate units,
such as, but not limited to separate apartments, offices or rented rooms, any
unit not occupied by the defendant is, in addition to being part of such
building, a separate building.

You must also determine whether the
defendant unlawfully (entered / remained in) the building. A person unlawfully
(enters / remains in) a building when (he/she) is not licensed or privileged to do so. To be
"licensed or privileged," the defendant must either have consent from the person
in possession of the building or have some other right to be in the building.

[To "enter" a building the intruder
need not necessarily place (his/her) entire body inside the building. Inserting
any part of (his/her) body, or an implement or weapon held by (him/her), within
the building is sufficient to constitute an entry as long as it is without
license or privilege. It does not matter how an intruder may actually have
entered; if (he/she) did so without license or privilege, (he/she) has entered
unlawfully.]

[A person may have entered the
(building / public land) lawfully, that is, (he/she) had the right or had been
given permission, but that right is terminated or the permission withdrawn by
someone who had a right to terminate or withdraw it. You may find that the
defendant "unlawfully remained" (in the building / on the land) under these
circumstances.]

Element 2 - OrderThe second element is that the
defendant, by (entering / remaining in) <identify building> was in
violation of a (restraining order / a protective order / foreign order of
protection).

In summary, the state must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant (entered / remained in) <identify
premises>, and 2) this was in violation of a (restraining order / protective
order / foreign order of protection).

If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
criminal trespass in the first degree, then you shall find the defendant
guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the
defendant not guilty.
_______________________________________________________

1
Do not instruct on both "unlawful entering" and "unlawful remaining" if the
information and the evidence could support a conceptual distinction between the
two. See "enters
or remains unlawfully" in the glossary.

2 A
restraining order issued pursuant to § 46b-15; a protective order issued
pursuant to §§ 46b-38c, 54-1k, or 54-82r; foreign order of protection as defined
by § 46b-15a. If the violation is charged in a separate count, you may simply
refer the jury to the instructions on that count.

Commentary

In State v. Bell, 55 Conn.
App. 475, 485, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 908 (1999), overruled on other grounds,
State v. Moulton, 310 Conn. 337, 356 (2014), the court order prohibited
the defendant from entering the building, so he could not be prosecuted for
being on the premises outside the building.

The validity of the underlying
order cannot be challenged in a prosecution under this statute. See State v.
Wright, 273 Conn. 418 (2005) (validity of underlying order not an element of
violation of a protective order).

It is not a violation of double
jeopardy to be convicted of both criminal trespass and violation of a protective
order. State v. Quint, 97 Conn. App. 72, 80-83, cert. denied, 280 Conn.
924 (2006).